the law is an ass – and my landlord too.
Yesterday the City of Toronto issued their first heat alert warning for the season – and the second today.
In fact, the hot weather is predicted to last for the next few days and my brains are officially fried. Why? Because I have a landlord who is a complete asshole who insists on following the letter of the law so my heat will not be shut off until June 1st. Apparently, he once got sued for turning the heat off to early and now he refuses to see reason or budge. It is not only that my heat is on but the furnace is at a temperature which heats my apartment as if its -20C outside rather +30C. When I got up this morning the temperature in the kitchen read 44C.
I can’t cook, fix my hair or apply eyeliner. This weekend the only time my hair wasn’t soaking wet was when we were holed up in my bedroom (the only place with air conditioning) or outside. We have been living on bread, fruit and raw vegetables which is okay and all – but there is a limit to how much raw broccoli and salad I want to eat. The tribe hates pasta so forget the more interesting salads. Besides, anything which takes more than 5 minutes to prepare – well, let’s just say I am so unmotivated to make anything which requires extended visits in my kitchen inferno.
Of course, all my computers are located in the heart of the inferno. I have argued, I have begged and pleaded. I have tried appeals to common sense, reason, and logic – all to no avail. He won’t budge and oddly enough, his particular form of assholery is also shared by such publicly funded institutions like Toronto Community Housing for refusing to turn off the heat in all the units under their control and the Toronto District School Board for refusing to turn on the air-conditioning in schools which have no windows that open in their classrooms – it’s the law – the municipal code etc.,
This has made me think about the whole concept of ‘reasonableness’ on both a practical and legal level. So much of any given law weighs or turns on a course of action based on what a ‘reasonable’ individual would do under any said circumstances. All of which brings me to the Crown’s dismissal of Michael Bryant’s charges.
I never thought there was a reasonable chance of conviction as long as the Bryant maintained one simple statement; I was afraid for my life. Nor was I surprised by the police laying the charges against Bryant for Sheppard’s death. Standard procedure, law and all that. What did surprise me was the Crown’s decision not even to bring the matter to trial suggesting there was no ‘reasonable’ measure of conviction. I have seen criminal matters proceed with the filmiest circumstantial evidence possible, and still, the Crown has still elected to roll the dice. I once asked a Crown why he elected to try a defendant under ‘questionable’ circumstances. He replied he believed a trial wasn’t only the defendant’s day in court but an opportunity for the victim of a crime to seek justice – and who was he to deny the victim his day?
Was Bryant’s actions reasonable? Or was there another course of action he could have chosen to take? What would a reasonable individual due under the circumstances? And what of the Darcy Sheppard and his rights?
It is like some people are born under such a dark cloud that reasonableness, much like justice, remains just as elusive in life as it is in death.
